On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 02:32:08AM +0100, Brad Bowman wrote:
:
: Hi,
:
: I've read and reread the macro explanation but I'm still not entirely
: clear on number of things. The questions and thoughts below are based
: on my (mis)understanding.
:
: On 03/02/06 02:05, Larry Wall wrote:
: >Macr
Hi,
I've read and reread the macro explanation but I'm still not entirely
clear on number of things. The questions and thoughts below are based
on my (mis)understanding.
On 03/02/06 02:05, Larry Wall wrote:
Macros are functions or operators that are called by the compiler as
soon as t
After a little more cleanup, S06 now reads:
=head2 Macros
Macros are functions or operators that are called by the compiler as
soon as their arguments are parsed (if not sooner). The syntactic
effect of a macro declaration or importation is always lexically
scoped, even if th
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 08:13:44PM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: On 1/29/06, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > Aside from that they are normal perl 6 subroutines, that simply get
: > invoked during compile time instead of during runtime.
:
: With one extra "feature". By default (my prefer
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 20:29:43 +, Herbert Snorrason wrote:
> On 29/01/06, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Basically the plan is that when an internal AST language is decided
> > upon, the macros will be able to get either the source code text, or
> > an AST.
> Two things. First, i
On 29/01/06, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Basically the plan is that when an internal AST language is decided
> upon, the macros will be able to get either the source code text, or
> an AST.
Two things. First, if the AST path is taken, doesn't that mean that
the AST representation has
On 1/29/06, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aside from that they are normal perl 6 subroutines, that simply get
> invoked during compile time instead of during runtime.
With one extra "feature". By default (my preference) or with a trait,
parameters can get passed in as ASTs instead of
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 18:53:25 +, Herbert Snorrason wrote:
> Perl6 will have macros. Good. Cool. But, sadly, that seems to be close
> to the most specific thing anyone says about the subject. There is
> some further discussion in Apocalypse & Exegesis 6, but nothing in the
> Synopsis.
>
> No
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 12:45:14PM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: > Well, only if you stick to a standard dialect. As soon as you start
: > defining your own macros, it gets a little trickier.
:
: Interesting, I hadn't considered that.
:
: Having a quick browse through some of th
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 02:05:50PM -0400, Brent Dax wrote:
: Larry Wall:
: > argument. In fact, ??:: could be implemented as an infix:?? macro
: > that does a special parse looking for a subsequent :: token.
:
: ...which gives us another built-in's implementation.
:
: macro infix:?? ($cond,
Larry Wall:
> argument. In fact, ??:: could be implemented as an infix:?? macro
> that does a special parse looking for a subsequent :: token.
...which gives us another built-in's implementation.
macro infix:?? ($cond, $expr1, $expr2)
is parsed(/:w () <'::'> ()/) {
return {
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 08:40:26AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
: You're both right.
Well, actually, I think Damian misspoke slightly. I only aim for
95% accuracy in the Apocalypses (or I'd never get them done). So I
think it's pretty spectacular if Damian gets to 99.44% accuracy in
the Exegese
--- "Abhijit A. Mahabal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In E6 Damien writes about macros:
>
> "As soon as it has parsed that subroutine call (including its
> argument
> list) it will detect that the subroutine &request is actually a
> macro, so
> it will immidiately call &request with the specified
13 matches
Mail list logo
